Ha! I just finished reading Lessig's wonderful Free Culture book online (though I was tempted, as I'm sure his commercial publishers expected, to buy the book and save on eyestrain.) Actually, reading the book online wasn't as bad as I though. For some reason, I can read/write stuff on forums, blogs, and wikis for three-four hour blocks, but trying to read straight prose is challenging--but it is a habit that I'm sure I can form. I read The Ontology of Cyberspaces just before tackling this project; it was quite interesting comparing the similarities/differences between the two.

Let me first say that I found the book quite exciting reading. Though I favor a more radical approach than Lessig seems willing to take regarding IP, the nation would undoubtedly be a better place if there were more Lessigs in it--in particular, if more Lessigs were on the Supreme Court! The "permission culture" Lessig describes is certainly well-known to any of us involved in publishing; tracking down permissions is definitely the most arduous and thankless task we perform. I also tracked down permissions for Moxley's College Writing Online, which involved contacting literally thousands of copyright holders. (On a personal note: The publisher promised me $2000 for my service, then reduced the pay to $1200. I think that says enough about Longman.)

One of Lessig's claims that I don't buy is the assertion that artists must get paid before they will be willing to contribute content. History shows quite clearly the opposite; many of our greatest artists were unpaid and lived in poverty. Furthermore, I question the integrity of ANY artist who claims that he or she is unwilling to create without pay.

I would like to think that the Internet is making life difficult for these "artists" and is greatly assisting the efforts of true artists who have until now had an enormous task in distributing their work.

I agree whole-heartily with Lessig that a large, valuable public domain is the key asset for a successful democracy. However, I would say that the public domain ought to consist of whatever the people are able to put there, not what artists or other content-makers "permit." Neither the artist nor the publisher ought to have any say in what gets distributed online. Even Creative Commons does not go far enough; most people insist that they be cited or referenced if their work appears elsewhere; this is simply a retardation of progress. I do not "own" this post, nor do I have any rights to it in any real sense. Anyone ought to be able to copy this and paste it wherever, without bothering to get my permission or cite my name as the "Author," who ought to be long dead!!

Do ANY of us actually follow or care about what Poststructuralists and Postmodernists were getting at in their discussions of authority? It's really depressing to think that some of the most SEVERE enforces of "Intellectual Property" are academics, with all of their ranting and raving about plagiarism and extensive "bibs," an abbreviation which I find quite amusing. Lynn Worsham, who probably knows as much about Foucault as anyone living, decided to restrict access to the online edition of JAC--the old stuff is available, but only "paying subscribers" will get the latest stuff, which is available only in the print version. Sure, it's only $20 for grad students to buy the print version, but my question is why not make it ALL available for free online? If it turns out that more people would rather read it online than buy the print journal, what's wrong with that? It's supposed to be a non-profit venture anyway.

In the meantime, I think cel4145 is probably far wiser than I am in his "baby step" approach. If we can just get people to embrace a "half-way" like CC, then perhaps the rest will follow soon.